|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 737 Records
-
2008 (4) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) detailing the documents which are required by the Petitioner for the adjudication proceedings. Learned counsel for the Petitioner says that a reply has already been filed to the show cause notice. He says that after receiving the documents, if need arises, he would file an additional reply. If that be so, the additional reply should be filed within four weeks. We may note that the show cause notice has been pending since 1994 and considerable time has gone by in testing the validity of the show cause notice, through a challenge in this Court, and so the only appropriate relief that can be granted to the Petitioner is expeditious disposal of the show cause notice. We, therefore, expect the Respondents to adhere the schedule given by us above and the Petitioner to cooperate in expeditious disposal of the show cause notice. No further relief is claimed by the Petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.
-
2008 (4) TMI 732 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gains along with return of income, so it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed anything from the Revenue. Therefore, this may be a good case for making addition against the assessee since he had made a wrong claim. However, this addition in itself is not sufficient for levying the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In view of the fact that the assessee had claimed the said deduction under a bona fide belief that he is entitled to the said deduction on the basis of legal advice given by his counsel and that he had furnished all the details relating to the capital gains along with return of income, it cannot be held that there was any mala fide intention of the assessee to conceal the income. 8. Considering the totality of the case and in the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No question of law is arising for determination of this Court in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed
-
2008 (4) TMI 731 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 69 - Cash credits - identity of the creditors - onus to prove source of credit - burden to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness - whether the assessee appellant had not sufficiently discharged the primary onus casted upon him? - HELD THAT:- It was noticed, that the Tribunal itself doubted about the correctness of its own conclusions, thus, this judgment is no authority for the proposition, that source of the source is required to be established by the assessee. Then, so far as judgment in Kishorilal's case [1995 (2) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] is concerned, six requirements noticed by this Court.
Examining the present case even on these parameters, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by Account Payee Cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also, about the discharge of burden on the part of the assessee, to prove identity and genuineness of the transaction.
So far as capacity of the lender is concerned, in our view, on the face of the judgment in Daulat Ram's case [1972 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT], and other judgments, capacity of the lender to advance money to the assessee, was not a matter which could be required of the assessee to be established, as that would amount to calling upon him to establish source of the source. In that view of the matter, since this part of the judgment runs contrary to the judgment of Daulat Ram's case, while this Court in a subsequent judgment in Mangilal's case [2006 (10) TMI 100 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], relying upon Daulat Ram's case, has taken a contrary view, we stand better advised to follow the view, which has been taken in Mangilal's case.
The net result is that all the three questions are answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the additions with respect to the entries of Vijay Kumar and Dharm Singh, for the amounts of ₹ 50,000 each, respectively made in the income of assessee, are ordered to be deleted.
-
2008 (4) TMI 730 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... . 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and the material on record. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce in ITA No.4469/Del/03 dt. 3-8-2007, held that the Assessing Officer cannot artificially allocate certain expenditure as having been incurred in relation to earning the income which does not form part of the total income. He can do so only after 1-4-2007 from which date, sub sections (2) and (3) were inserted in sec. 14A by the Finance Act, 2006. In the present case also, the Assessing Officer has not given any finding that certain expenses were definitely incurred for earning dividend income. The Delhi Bench relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of State Bank of Indore v. CIT in 193 ITR 62. Respectfully following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, we delete the disallowance. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order was pronounced in the court on 17-4-2008.
-
2008 (4) TMI 729 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cer had placed reliance upon section 41(4A) of the Act but it was noted that that provision had come into effect from 1-4-1998 and this was mentioned by the assessee in a footnote in its computation of income. 4. On these facts, both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was a full and complete disclosure of facts by the assessee and there was no reason to issue a notice to the assessee to reopen its assessment. 5. The Tribunal has also relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2002 256 ITR 1 1. 6. In view of the above, we find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 728 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Determination of Gross profit percentage - Rejection of books of account u/s 145 - 2/3 Expenditure incurred on labour wages - Reopening the assessment u/s 148 - on the ground that in the assessment year 1992-93 the gross profit rate of 10.5 per cent was applied while the assessee has disclosed the gross profit of 6.69 per cent.
Determination of Gross profit percentage - Rejection of books of account u/s 145 - 2/3 Expenditure incurred on labour wages - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the rejection of books of account is not justified and based on irrelevant consideration. It is not in dispute that in the manufacturing of Biri there is involvement of labourers. The labourers are normally illiterate, as observed by the Tribunal and 2/3rd amount of the expenditure were incurred in the payment of labours wages. In these circumstances, the preparation of self made vouchers by the assessee cannot be said to be against the trade practice and method of accountancy. The assessee had no other option but to prepare self made vouchers to prove the expenditure incurred for the payment of labour wages.
It is claimed by the assessee that in the vouchers the name and address of the labours, the amount paid, the date etc. were mentioned. The signature of the labourers or thumb impression have been obtained. No case has been made out by the revenue that the vouchers were bogus and the amount has not been paid. The labourers have not been examined. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the payments were not verifiable.
Thus, we are of the view that the rejection of books of account is wholly unjustified. The books of account is accordingly accepted and addition in this regard is deleted.
Reopening the assessment u/s 148 - on the ground that in the assessment year 1992-93 the gross profit rate of 10.5 per cent was applied while the assessee has disclosed the gross profit of 6.69 per cent - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the order of Tribunal is vitiated and liable to be set aside. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh and adjudicate the fundamental question namely, "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the case for the assessment year 1994-95 was justified?"
In the result, both the appeals are allowed as stated above. For the AY 1994-95 the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observation made.
-
2008 (4) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of amount demanded - penalty - CENVAT credit - Held that: - the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount demanded and the penalty imposed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 726 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - cash payment - survey conducted u/s 133A - during search found foreign made gold bar biscuits - Applicability of Section 40A(3) - Tribunal deleted the addition equivalent to purchase of gold on behalf of the assessee by his son Lalit Kumar - Deleted the additions made by the AO within the meaning of Section 40A(3) -
Applicability of Section 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- In our view, a bare reading of the language of this sub-section is enough to show, that the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted with respect to either of the transactions; obviously because it only prohibits allowing of deduction as expenditure. Expenditure obviously means expenditure admissible to be deducted from out of the income, which may include the expenditure on purchase and the like, and the subsection provides that if any such expenditure is incurred after specified date, in a specified manner, then 20 per cent of such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction.
In the present case the assessee has not claimed any deduction of any expenditure and therefore, there is no question of not allowing any part of that expenditure, as deduction. Thus, the finding arrived at in this regard, by the learned CIT(A), and the ld Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong. Accordingly answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - From a reading of the order of the ld Tribunal it is clear that the whole thrust of the order is that the assessee was having sufficient cash balance on the relevant dates inasmuch as on 13th May, 1998, the cash balance is Rs. 4,85,334, then on 14th May, 1998 the cash balance is Rs. 5,33,290, and then on 15th May, 1998, the cash balance is 5,78,545, and then from 15th to 19th it is static, at figure Rs. 5,78,545. This figure obviously exceeds Rs. 3,88,000, but then the million dollar circumstance which has been considered by the learned AO and the learned CIT(A) is that if the existing cash balance has been used for purchasing gold bars, obviously the available cash balance would have decreased, while it has not so decreased, and thus the only possible conclusion is that the gold bars were purchased worth Rs. 3,88,000 from the amounts available with the assessee from undisclosed source, obviously beyond the amount shown in the cash book to be lying with the assessee.
Mere fact that the assessee alleges that the gold was sold is not enough to refuse to make addition u/s 69. So far as the allegation of the gold having been sold away is concerned, that can be an additional aspect, that the transaction is unrecorded transaction, but then thereby it cannot be said that the investment is shown to have been made from out of disclosed resources available with the assessee.
The investment is clearly investment, on the face of it, made from out of the funds available with the assessee, from undisclosed sources, and is unexplained investment. What happened to the sale proceeds, where that money has gone etc., are all aspects, which are alien to the present controversy.
Therefore, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to concur with the finding of the ld Tribunal on this question, rather the findings of the AO, and the learned CIT(A), are the findings in accordance with law.
Accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the ld Tribunal is set aside, and that of the learned CIT(A) is restored.
-
2008 (4) TMI 725 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... this view of the matter, the present assessment order cannot be sustained. In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee stands allowed. 8. In the Revenue’s appeal, the only ground raised by the Revenue reads as under "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,87,773 by holding that reopening and merits of addition are in contravention of principle of natural justice." 9. Since while deciding the cross-objection of the assessee, it is held by us that the present assessment order is not valid because of non-compliance of s. 151(2) and because of violation of principle of natural justice, the ground raised by. the Revenue does not survive. No separate adjudication is called for because when the reassessment itself does not survive, no addition or deletion thereof survives. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT
Whether to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and bald expressions without any supporting material to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine?
-
2008 (4) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT
Whether appellant is liable to pay Access Deficit Charges ("ADC") to BSNL for the period commencing from 14.11.2004 to 26.8.2005 in respect of its service provided under its brand name "WALKY"?
-
2008 (4) TMI 722 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the 1958 Act') is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
-
2008 (4) TMI 721 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch would “vary secundum materiam” (p. 226). Sometimes, where the sense of the statute demands it or where there has been an obvious mistake in drafting, a court will be prepared to substitute another word or phrase for that which actually appears in the text of the Act (p. 231).” 21. In view of the above, the impugned Order dated 19th October, 2000 is quashed with liberty to the respondent-DDA to issue a fresh show cause notice clearly elucidating and pointing out the irregularities and violation of Sub-Clause 14 of Clause II of the Sub-lease deed. The petitioner will be given opportunity to file reply and thereafter a speaking order will be passed dealing with the defence raised by the petitioner. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved he will be at liberty to challenge the said order. All other issues and questions are left open. 22. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 720 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ister concern. That the provisions of s. 269SS and s. 269T of the Act have been brought on statute book with a specific intention of curbing black money and taking advantage of cash transaction for explaining the cash available during the search. The Tribunal has, therefore, concluded that the default, if any, is of a venial nature and no penalty can be imposed. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the Tribunal has merely appreciated the facts and evidence on record. There is no evidence to come to the conclusion that such appreciation of facts and evidence is not correct, or is perverse. Therefore, the impugned order of Tribunal in relation to deletion of penalty under s. 271D and s. 271E of the Act does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the four questions are answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 719 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Appeal admitted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 1581 of 2007.
-
2008 (4) TMI 718 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... agement decided to treat the second unit as a separate unit. It applied for and obtained all clearance for the second unit as a separate and distinct unit. Both, the State Government and the Union of India treated the second unit as a separate and distinct unit. Merely because on a petition an objection has been raised by the CAG, the Union of India cannot now change its stand. The learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Cross-objection No. 4 of 2005. By means of these Cross-objections, the respondents No. 4 and 5 have prayed that interest should be awarded on the subsidy which has been found due and payable to them. The learned Single Judge has used his discretion while rejecting their claim. We find no reason to interfere with the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the letters patent appeal as well as in the Cross-objections which are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 717 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e appeal filed by the assessee in that case was dismissed as reported in 2005 (179) ELT A205 (SC). As such, we find no reason to take a different view on the issue of classification and reject the appeal. 3. However, at this stage, the learned advocate submits that since they were agitating the classification issue, their claim for benefit of small scale exemption notification was not put forward and considered by the adjudicating authority. He also submits that the entire realization has to be considered as cum-duty-price and modvat credit subject to fulfillment of production of duty paying document, should be extended to them. For the said purpose, we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority, for assessing the appellant’s duty liability by considering their claim of small scale exemption benefit as also on the ground of cum-duty-price and admissibility of modvat credit. 4. The appeal is disposed off in above terms. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (4) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent was found guilty by the Cantonment Board but the order of Cantonment Board was set aside because it suffered from bias and it will be unfair to deny 50% back wages to the respondent (herein)?
-
2008 (4) TMI 715 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... dy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 714 - SUPREME COURT
Whether denial of Dearness Relief on pension in case of those retired employees of VSNL who have drawn pay on IDA pay scales with IDA Dearness Relief is legal and just?
Whether any pensionary benefits have been given to respondents-retirees or to any similarly situated persons of VSNL at the time of mistaken calculation of the pensionary benefits or in compliance to the order of the High Court, such benefits shall not be recovered from them?
............
|
